My local gun board is infested with libertarians and democRATs. The Rats were gloating about O'Dumdum's re-election, etc. Prior to the election they were insisting O'Bummer wouldn't make any moves to restrict gun rights, ownership, etc.

Now they've got egg on their faces, and one of them announced he's converting to the Republican party, solely on the basis of gun rights. But he continues to be a liberal on all other issues. Numerous posters chimed in that they did the same, etc, and are working to change the Republican party from within. They want to make us "socially relevant."

BTW, civilization would be greatly improved if we were rid of you people. Open borders. Vending machine dope (right next to the bubble gum). Continued torture and slaughter of 1.5 million annually, unborn children. Faggot equal rights, etc.

No thanks. Give a social undesirable a gun and you have, well, a social undesirable with a gun.

And only a fool could miss the reason I posted this thread. It's not about gun rights. It's about you and your ilk coming into the Republican party and contaminating us with your abortion rights, dope, open borders, etc.

"...Black panthers and white supremacists also champion gun rights. Doesnt mean we have anything in common..."

To "have something in common" means to share some goal, have a characteristic or property in common, etc.

Your post seemed to be SPECIFICALLY about "Gun Rights".

Your statement that your local gun board was "infested with Libertarians" implied that was an impediment to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. I posted the relevant position of the LP regarding guns. Your assertion that having LP members on the board restricts your 2nd Amendment rights is not correct.

If you are a strong 2A supporter, then you have that in common with the Libertarian Party.

If you READ more of their platform positions, I would bet you have even more policy postions in common.

I would ALSO bet that if you READ the Republican Party platform positions, you would find many there that you would DISAGREE WITH.

Unless you are the head of your own political party, with a membership of ONE, then NO single political party will EXACTLY match your views on everything.

this libertarian (small l libertarian) is against abortion, against open borders, but is also against the war on drugs, not because of the drugs themselves, but because of the police actions and slow erosion of personal rights that has come with it..

now what do you have to say, sir?

14
posted on 12/18/2012 9:14:02 AM PST
by joe fonebone
(The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)

I understand the dilemma. The country has gone nuts. Ron Paulbots were crazy on social and foreign policy. The GOP is not conservative. Conservatives are leaving the GOP. The tea party is very upset with the GOP and John Boehner. Fraud was committed in the election. The left has been infiltrating the GOP for years. Things are going insane. People who are of different persuasions dislike Barack Obama, but let him win re-election. No place to go because a civil war in the GOP has to take place or form another party. Bad times.

In other words the GOP has a tent that can no longer get along because they vastly disagree on the direction to take. And just because some people in the GOP agree on some things with us conservatives like dislike of Obama or gun right or economic policy does not mean we agree on everything with them or vice versa. So we get into bitter debates.

The problem is that social conservatives or the social-fiscal hybrid which I call traditional conservatism and libertarians especially social liberatians can’t co-exist.

Us conservatives believe in Christian principals and right to life and traditional moral and cultural values.

But a social libertarian thinks that everybody is free to do as they please without the need for laws, problems, or consequences. They think social issues should be left up to the person to decide what to do and everyone is free to do what they want. In essence they support the leftist view of social issues in many regards.

The libertarians are on the wrong side of every social issue such as abortion, drug prohibition, homosexuality, marriage, prostitution and just about every other choice that consenting adults make with the exception of gun ownership.

Social libertarians are really no different from the leftists that want to destroy society.

The libertarians are on the wrong side of every social issue such as [...] drug prohibition, [...] prostitution and just about every other choice that consenting adults make with the exception of gun ownership.

Social libertarians are really no different from the leftists that want to destroy society.

Legal drugs didn't destroy our society the last time they were legal (nor has the legal drug alcohol done so), and legal prostitution hasn't destroyed Nevada.

Us conservatives believe in Christian principals and right to life and traditional moral and cultural values. But a social libertarian thinks that everybody is free to do as they please without the need for laws, problems, or consequences. They think social issues should be left up to the person to decide what to do and everyone is free to do what they want. In essence they support the leftist view of social issues in many regards.

Well maybe free to do as they please until they start infringing on another's rights.

It isn't necessarily that libertarians agree with those social issues that should be left up to individuals to police, or that there aren't consequences for some of those decisions, it's just that we dont believe in using the fed gov to do those things. Especially when the Consitution doesn't give those powers to the fed gov.

So in that vein, I believe you're right. It's fair to say that social conservatives and libertarians cant really coexist.

It's also fair to say that you support the leftist view of using the fed gov in completely anti-constitutional ways in many regards. aka, you're a progressive.

It's fair to say that while you'll pay lip service to personal responsibility, you dont actually believe in it. aka, you're a hypocrite.

And finally, it's fair to say that you probably have much more in common with democrats than actual conservatives. Aka, you're the Whig party.

The libertarians are on the wrong side of every social issue such as abortion, drug prohibition, homosexuality, marriage, prostitution and just about every other choice that consenting adults make....

So can we say that you believe that it's the proper role of DC to give sanction to or ban those activities? If so, perhaps you can show us where the constitution specifically gives the feds that power?

32
posted on 12/18/2012 3:12:17 PM PST
by Orangedog
(An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)

I should mention that there are also disagreements with libertarians on foreign policy. They want to curtail the defense and have come to think of the military as a force that has caused more harm than good. They don’t value a war on terror or understand its ramifications. They do not get the Islamic threats. There is one group that is even against Israeli and any Jewish state. There is another that is very anti-war and wants to end all wars.

They think everything is a civil liberties issue or causing a police state and while some of it is understandable and true, they oppose measures of any kind to track or punish the enemy. They are heavily opposed to the military.

They support cutting defense. Now I don’t mind cutting some of the defense if not needed and fixing departments as long as it does not jeopardize security. But some libertarians want it cut as drastic as Obama or even more because war is bad to them and they see it as us being the oppressors around the world. Hence they call republican, conservatives or folks who support the military and defense as neo-cons.

But rampant drugs and drug use destroys the culture. People will start to try them because they are available to try if not outlawed. The majority of the ghettos and cities with high crime rates have a drug problem. Drugs are bad. Who would want to poison the body and end up sick? You have to enjoy life not start destroying the one body you were given. If it is your choice fine, but people make an industry of it. If it is legal then the industry will flourish like in Amsterdam.

I say it is the role of society to keep things moral and decent for the kids and for it to be a respectable society for all of us to live in. I don’t want to live in inner city Detroit or South-side Chicago where social values have run amok with their socially liberal outlook on life. I want a nation that is clean and moral. Not one filled with debauchery and a broken down society. A destruction of our values to be good human beings.

Ah but leftists or neo-progressives agree more with your point of view. They want government off their bodies and out of their personal lives. They want to be able to be free to ruin the culture and do things that are not moral and decent. They are using it to push left wing values that take it faraway from the traditional values the founding fathers had. Religion was an important part of the founding of the nation.

Lot of socially liberal people are not friendly to religion. They don’t like values, they want to be free to do what they want without any consequence.

They want to curtail the defense and have come to think of the military as a force that has caused more harm than good.

They [libertarians] actually have a point here: it is destructive to our own sovereignty to impose our will upon other nations via the military (i.e. being "world police") -- this is because in doing so we assert that might makes right, and therefore have absolutely no legal or moral defense (w/o becoming hypocrites) if and when that should be done to us (think UN enforcement of small-arms treaty/agreement).

Not that our government isn't hypocritical in the extreme now: they have cited state sponsored terrorism as justification for forcing [regime] changes to foreign states -- and then executed Operation Fast & Furious, which is state sponsored terrorism.

They dont value a war on terror or understand its ramifications.

I'm a veteran and I'm against a "War on Terror." Why? Because there is no victory condition -- certainly not one that is militarily attainable. Like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, the 'target' of the declared 'war' is ever malleable and will always be changed to further government control; if the War on Drugs was ever close to eradicating drugs on the street the 'goal' would be changed to include prescription drug abuse -- likewise, if the War on Terror were close to being won there would be one thing sure to change: the definition of terrorist, allowing for more government control/action {actually, this has already happened in some degree with militia, returning vets, third-party supporters, and anti-abortionists all being flagged as possible terrorist groups}.

In short, I'm against any 'war'/policy that doesn't have well-defined and attainable/enforceable goals.

38
posted on 12/18/2012 7:12:15 PM PST
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

But rampant drugs and drug use destroys the culture. People will start to try them because they are available to try if not outlawed. The majority of the ghettos and cities with high crime rates have a drug problem. Drugs are bad. Who would want to poison the body and end up sick? You have to enjoy life not start destroying the one body you were given. If it is your choice fine, but people make an industry of it. If it is legal then the industry will flourish like in Amsterdam.

Wow. You really don't see it, do you? The people who "poison their body" are those who are the most in need of help (and hope) -- Jesus came to heal the sick, not the well... and if you are a christian then your goal is to become Christ-like. Period.

39
posted on 12/18/2012 7:16:24 PM PST
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

No, leftists want the govt off their bodies only so far as abortion goes but up to the neck in everyone's personal lives otherwise. So do you. I abhor abortion and believe it infringes on someone else's life (aside from the fact it's murder). Therefore it's wrong and I believe there should be a law against it. But get your f'ing boots off my neck. If I choose to smoke weed, it's really none of your damned business so long as I'm not infringing on someone else's rights.

Ya, the founders believed religion was important and so do I, but this weren't no theocracy and I failed to read a piece of the Consitution that gives the feds the power to enforce your version of morality.

They are using it to push left wing values that take it faraway from the traditional values the founding fathers had

So what the hell's the difference between a leftist using the govt to push their values and you using the govt to push yours? The founders believed it was incumbent upon US to do such things, not the govt. On this, you agree with leftists in using fed powers to do things not in the Constitution.

Lot of socially liberal people are not friendly to religion. They dont like values, they want to be free to do what they want without any consequence.

That's great, but I go to church and I still maintain you're every bit as progressive as the left and have more in commmon with the left than I ever will. I believe in the founder's libertarianism and you clearly dont. Great conversation. Thanks.

Legal drugs didn't destroy our society the last time they were legal (nor has the legal drug alcohol done so), and legal prostitution hasn't destroyed Nevada.

But rampant drugs and drug use destroys the culture.

There is no sound reason to expect legalization to lead to "rampant" drug use - it didn't the last time drugs were legal in the USA.

People will start to try them because they are available to try if not outlawed.

News flash: they are available to try now even though outlawed.

Is the law YOUR primary reason to not use drugs?

The majority of the ghettos and cities with high crime rates have a drug problem.

And an alcohol problem, and a fatherlessness problem, and etc. Which causes what?

And note that the illegality of drugs incentivizes crime by hyperinflating the price of drugs.

Drugs are bad. Who would want to poison the body and end up sick? You have to enjoy life not start destroying the one body you were given.

All applicable to alcohol and tobacco - and all decisions that should be left to individuals.

If it is your choice fine, but people make an industry of it. If it is legal then the industry will flourish like in Amsterdam.

No more than the alcohol and tobacco industries flourish in the USA. Should those be banned? If people want things, other people will sell them - that's a fundamental fact of human nature that can't be legislated away ... but such utopian legislative fantasies can do a lot of harm, as we saw with Prohibition and see today with the War On Drugs.

I don't even think there's a freerepublic any more, given the libertarians posting on this thread.

This sounds pretty small-"l" libertarian to me:

'Has nothing whatsoever to do with bedroom behavior. Its the public in your face and down our kids throats behavior that is intolerable. Keep it off our public squares, out of our playgrounds, out of our parks, out of our public restrooms, off our streets, out of our schools, out of our churches, off of our TV, out of our movies, out of our judiciary, out of our military, out of our government and out of our faces!! Take it back to your private bedrooms. Thankyouverymuch!!' - Jim Robinson, 05/26/2011

I don't know what the context of Mr. Robinson's comment was framed, but homosexuality is a pervasive evil regardless it's setting. The Bible strictly forbids it. In the Old Testament (which was fulfilled by Christ, therefore done away with) it was a crime punishable by death.

In the New Testament, Rom 1:26ff: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Paul discusses numerous other sins but then concludes in verse 32, Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I don't know what Paul had in mind in verse 32 re "worthy of death." I think the consensus might be that he was referring to the second death, viz. eternal damnation. Regardless, he was saying that homosexuality is an abomination in public or private.

I also don't understand your reference to small vs large case libertarian. I don't think it's relevant. Libertarians universally demand/espouse that which God condemns, and that's enough for me.

I don't even think there's a freerepublic any more, given the libertarians posting on this thread.

This sounds pretty small-"l" libertarian to me: [...]

I don't know what the context of Mr. Robinson's comment was framed,

I gave you the link - you can easily see the context yourself.

but homosexuality is a pervasive evil regardless it's setting. The Bible strictly forbids it. In the Old Testament (which was fulfilled by Christ, therefore done away with) it was a crime punishable by death.

It seems that the founder/owner of FreeRepublic doesn't think it's government's proper role to enforce all biblical proscriptions. Perhaps FR is not the site for you.

I also don't understand your reference to small vs large case libertarian.

Uppercase L is the Libertarian Party, which endorses some flaky things.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.